"Best book for 1805" Topic

I am looking for recommendations for the best book (from a wargaming perspective of course) for the 1805 campaign: maps, Orbats, etc. The only books I have which cover it are Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon and Esposito and Elting's Atlas.

As a primer, is the more recent Osprey by Ian Castle on Austerlitz good?

Get Scott Bowden's book "The Glory Years 1805-1807--Napoleon at Austerlitz"
I was just looking through it yesterday, and was reminded what a comprehensive amount of material it contains for the wargamer.

I would second that, but my opinion is he does write from a French point of veiw.

Get Scott Bowden's book "The Glory Years 1805-1807--Napoleon at Austerlitz"
I was just looking through it yesterday, and was reminded what a comprehensive amount of material it contains for the wargamer.

First problem with this work is the sheer bias in this book.

Second is degree of inaccuarcy on the Allied side.

link

Robert Goetz' Austerlitz is outstanding military history.

Me, I like 'The Glory Years' but it does want to make you 'follow the Eagle"!

Goetz is unrivaled for an account of the battle, and available for a song, although it is not a comprehensive account of the campaign.

Goetz is a good.Don't forget Duffy's account of the battle as a stand alone book from the 70's. It's very readable.

Elliot, there is a lot of good information in the book that is quite accurate, and I suspect those reviewers are not wargamers- the maps are hardly useless for us. I'm not saying he isn't 'biased', I will just say that bias does not preclude the use of much of the information in the book when wargaming 1805, such as the OOB's, terrain information, time, distance and communication info, the sense of how armies moved on campaign and a good picture of the overall situation. The info for the Allies is probably less useful than for the French. In my experience there is a general lack of english text available that gives as good an accounting of the Allies as is available for the French. I'm not sure, but I suspect the records surviving are rather more thin on their side as it is.
Best,
Rob

Both the Duffy & Goetz works are excellent and un-biased IMHO but they recount the Battle of Austerlitz whereas Bowden, admittedly with his pro-French bias, does cover the whole 1805 Campaign and a myriad of the smaller actions in wonderful, wargamer levels of detail if that is what you're after.

The Austerlitz maps in Bowden are, in fact, useless due to some kind of technical flaw in their preparation.

Useless for research, or wargaming? They are fun for small actions…I've never played the big battle.
I do want to add to be fair to Scott Bowden that there may be 3 negative reviews on Amazon-but there are also 16 positive ones- as far as that goes.
I have found some of the maps very helpful, such as some of the river crossing/ bridge actions..one finds (like Napoleon did, I guess)that there are a certain number of the same bridges roads and defiles that are of importance over and over again in different campaigns- some of the maps for these are a boon.

@Alan Lockhart Best books to buy on this campaign:

1805: Austerlitz by Goetz Robert has already been plugged above – and has to be your first purchase for this battle and pre battle campaign. The definitive work on the battle.

Austerlitz Napoleon and the Eagles of Europe by Ian Castle has to be your second purchase – probably the best / definitive in english for the Austerlitz campaign.

Next I would purchase:

Austerlitz by C. Duffy

Austerlitz Osprey by Ian Castle – Great book this and should not be underestimated particularly the colour illustrations of the battlefield.

The Glory Years 1805-1807--Napoleon at Austerlitz by Bowden (Great book for small actions but has stated Scott weatrs his colours on his arm and heart for France Le Emperor!).

In summary:
For the battle, the definitive account with lots of detail on the battle is 1805: Austerlitz by R. Goetz.

For the unbiased account of the campaign the definitive work on this is Austerlitz Napoleon and the Eagles of Europe by Ian Castle.

For colour portrayal of the battlefield and troops in action Osprey Austerlitz by Castle.

For a campaign with smaller actions including the battle itself but from a French perspective it is The Glory Years by Scott Bowden.

About 5 years back I read everything there is out there in secondary source on this battle. The best of the lot have been articulated in my list and from others above.

I trust and hope this helps.

@138SquadronRaf – To be fair , I don't believe Scott Bowden has tried to hide is bias unlike some historians….

the best books –
by Alembert and Colin

in German

By Kraus

in English

by Goetz

add all three and you get a good basic knowledge about the campaign

(I believe Alembert and Colin never makes it to Austerlitz.)

Useless for research, or wargaming?

Useless as a map. Take a close look at it and see for yourself. Rivers do not run uphill.

I think you are offering a false dichotomy. If "written to a wargames standard" is the cry, you might as well just look it up on the web, or use any old book. No need to spend $40. USD

Many thanks.

vW I concur with the nice additions (just for clarity for others it is:- La Campagne de 1805 en Allemagne, P. C. Alombert and J. Colin 1902), however, I have assumed (and I know I shouldn't have) that the OP probably wanted publications readily and cheaply in english? Print on demand are generally of poor quality.

And Castle and Goetz both utilised Alombert and Kraus.

@von Winterfeldt please could you do me a big favour and send me an email to me at trajanic@gmail.com I would like to ask you a question off line thanks.

many thanks

Marcus' list is an excellent place to start.

Goetz and Duffy are great, and the Castle Osprey is light years ahead of the old Chandler one.

If you like pictures too, then the Hortoulle is not bad either.

If you want a lot of detail, then the additional book is Kagan 'end of the old empire' – unfairly overlooked by pretty much everyone on this site, its an great narrative of the campaign.

I wouldn't turn up my nose to Stutterheim's English account (available freely, online), nor Manceron's (admittedly French POV) effort either.

Hi Hew,
Which map (page#?)
Is the topography backwards as well?- I confess not noticing that. I would otherwise just figure the flow regardless of how it's marked…I just didn't notice. Can't recall when the flow direction mattered in a wargameany way, so no harm done (well, except Aspern-Essling of course)and for supply transport- but it's usually intuitive when discussing the Danube and tributaries. Now if the topography is cracked thats different!
Best,
Rob

I think that the Bowden book comes in very handy, especially if you are looking for wargame scenarios and good orders of battle for the campaign.

All history books have some bias in them, n'est-ce pas?

Fritz

Apart from rivers running uphill (isn't there one in Scotland?) some or all of the maps lack a scale bar, which is inconvenient, but not an insurmountable problem.

Allan

Rob,
Please look at the map first.

All history books have some bias in them, n'est-ce pas?

Non.
Castle, Duffy, Goetz do not show "bias" in the common sense of the word.

Even though I'm a Russian/Prussian player I love the book mind you. I thought I might be gong out on a limb with my comment. It turns out the limb is thicker than the trunk of this tree.

Which map Hew?

The Austerlitz map.

do you mean the map on p 318? Yep-there is something off there with the waterways- in the upper left hand corner! woops lol…still, dozens of other good ones..I enjoy the other illustrations in abundance as well.
The pictures and maps of the Durenstein area have been immensely helpful also.

I would point out that Bowden concluded the Allied army was much smaller than had previously been determined. I would hardly call that being biased.

I'm not a fan of Kagan. He represented Alexander had the purity of a virgin when it came to his father's death. Imagine a Czar being shocked that his father was assassinated and then promoting one or the chief conspirators, Buxhowden. It is also difficult to understand Kagan's kid glove treatment of that old drunk, who was responsible for the collapse of the Left Wing. Nor was I impressed with his treatment of Langeron who was more disciplined for running afoul of Buxhowden than poor performance. Indeed Kagen showed a lack of understanding of Napoleonic battles when he alleged Langeron could have withdrawn those of his units which were engaged with the French and redirected them back to the Pratzen. What utter nonsense.

In short it wasn't one of the Kagan family's better efforts.

Bob Coggins

I think the book is far better than that potted critique Bob.

And the overall history of the campaign itself more than makes up for any criticisms of Kagan's conclusions about the options on the day itself.

I don't think I have seen a book which better covers the build up to 1805, nor one which covers so much valuable information about Ulm and the manoevering before Austerlitz itself.

Most are far too interested in rushing directly to the day and telling us how masterful Napoleon's plan was.

Kagan is one of the few who really gets a good sense of exactly how much Napoleon's gamble relied up Alexander doing a Pompey and insisting on a battle which need not have been fought.

And his narrative of the Russian advance really gives a good sense of what the Austrian strategic plan was all about, and where it went wrong.

To read most histories, you would think Napoleon knew where Mack was, planned from Paris that he would surround him and force him to surrender, and that he then marched directly to Austerlitz and laid out this masterful trap into which the allied army sprang.

Not so, and Kagan covers this in great detail.

Certainly, Goetz is better on the day itself, but I think you do a diservice to someone requesting recommendations if you imply that Kagan's book is not worth looking out for at the same time.

To read most histories, you would think Napoleon knew where Mack was, planned from Paris that he would surround him and force him to surrender, and that he then marched directly to Austerlitz and laid out this masterful trap into which the allied army sprang.

One doesn't find that problem in the Bowden book. In fact, he spends quite a few pages (I don't have my copy close at hand right now) on the Ulm campaign and the smaller battles that led up to the surrender at Ulm. He also provides a lot of information on the various battles and encounters that occurred on the road to Vienna as well as the encounters between Vienna and Austerlitz. I have never found this type of information in any other book about the 1805 campaign. The battle commentary is done in a manner that makes them easily converted into wargame scenarios, something that I like.

And yes, all history books have some sort of bias for the simple fact that people are, well, human, and they all have points of view.

Keraunos,

We entirely disagree.

Kagen the Much Younger is little more than a flack for the Allies and not as good a writer as his father and brother. What was noticeable was his lack of understanding of the strategic situation and the shallowness of his knowledge of warfare in the Napoleonic era.

Of course Napoleon knew where Mack was. That fool moved into Bavaria, a French ally, where every farmer was a spy. By deduction Napoleon also knew Kutusov could never reach Ulm in time to prevent the French from destroying the Austrians. After that it was a matter of making decisions based on the strategic situation.

Have you ever considered you have never found Kagan's interpretation in any other book because he got it wrong?

But then each to his own. If you want to believe Frederick Kagen got it right then fare-thee-well.

Bob Coggins

Most histories will show that Napoleon did not know where the main force of Mack was, he believed them at the Lech and not at Ulm, Ney did a fantastic job to cover the left bank of the Danube – despite Napoleon almost let escape the Austrians due to his miscalculation about their point of concentration.

von Winterfeldt,

I agree. I apologize if my shorthand was unclear. To shorten my posts and not make them read like a book, I tend to omit details on the TMP. That's why I wrote it was a matter of making decisions based on the strategic situation.

What was important was the Austrians were in Bavaria and not Vienna waiting for the Russians and Napoleon knew it.

Bob Coggins

the daily orders, which Kagan recounts to give his narrative of the Ulm campaign clearly demonstrate that the French had no idea of where Mack was, as vW says.

Equally, Kagan recounts reports which give a good indication of the decisions Mack was making which lead him to stay put.

Its a far cry for the traditional 'Austrian clumsy command structure meets omnipotent Napoleon', rabbit in the headlights analysis which we had to accept thirty years ago.

but hey, its out on paperback, and is well written, so just read it and decide for yourself.

For those of you who weren't around 15 years ago, there was a lively discussion of "Austerlitz and Napoleon", but, ironically when the Web seems to preserve so much, it seems to have disappeared along with the forum where it took place. The Cook review on Amazon is an abridged version of his review in First Empire #40 which in turn was a distillation of the discussion.

The book is handy for a half dozen scenario, but the criticisms are well-founded as well.

Informative discussion, thanks. I've now got the Goetz book on order from ABE.com

Just received a copy of "The End of the Old Order" on Keraunos's recommendation. A quick glance suggests what there is is good, and my there certainly is a lot of it;-) OK, it now appears that there is a second English work on the Ulm campaign and the lesser battles on the road to Austerlitz (as well as Austerlitz). It does not have the OB info found in Bowden, then again I happened to compare one of his to Smith's Data Book and well, I wouldn't be surprised if they were both wrong.

It seems it might straighten out some difficulties about Dürnstein alluded to by Goetz.

I've picked up both the Kagsn and Goetz.
So far, I have to say Keranous is right about the Kagan book- and the part I've been over covering the maneuvering up to Ulm has moved me to rethink and rewrite some of the guidelines our campaign rules have regarding Austrian staff efficency and command ability as well. The tradional 'RITH' view I have been toting around in the opinion bag seems utterly simplistic to the point of Gallic bias.

Just paging through, but I noticed a couple of footnotes already taking Connelly down a peg or two whose analysis I really enjoyed. So whatever faults Kagan finds with Napoleon, they aren't those of Owen.

Speaking for myself, having read books in the English language on the Napoleonic Wars for more decades than I care to mention, I find a French bias very refreshing.

John Miller

You won't find much French bias in such books as by Alembert and Colin, nor much German bias by Kraus, those authors give a nice coverage of the campaign.

The End of the Old Order – the writing is good, and there certainly is a lot of it. I'm not even half way through, so I cannot comment at all on the military aspects, but I'm beginning to sense what the critics are feeling. Like a film that goes on too long, my suspension of disagreement is beginning to falter. I think those who complain about the "writing" really mean the "argument".
It starts out with simple, clear exposition of the dilemmas facing the major Allied players, but as it goes on and on, it becomes increasingly obvious that the "simple, clear" is a distillation of Kagan's take, and that the same standards are not being applied to Napoleon. When he started moving from the diplomacy to the war plans, I find myself increasingly encountering "That's not true!" moments.
I was initially surprised by the seemingly Napophile objections to his (as yet unread military) narrative, because he seems very sympathetic to their diplomatic take – Britain violates the Treaty of Amiens and Nappy would have been content with messing around in Holland and Italy (a notably unevidenced assertion:-( ). And I doubt he is anywhere near Connelly or Barnett. But I can guess that they are reacting to the endless dissection and critique of every detail without a convincing statement of the alternative. All very professorial in a bad sense.